TB9-30804

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-30804 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Montreal, QC Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 15, 2021 Date de la décision Panel Me Richard Sheitoyan Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal N/A Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] I dismiss this appeal. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a citizen of Peru who claims to be a victim of extortion by individuals who, beginning in XXXX 2019, targeted one of her brothers. His refusal to pay the amount and subsequently fleeing to an undisclosed location in Peru made Ms. XXXX the next person of interest. Written, text and phone threats began being received on XXXX XXXX, 2019, forcing her and her parents to move in with an aunt three days later. [2] A XXXX XXXX assault on her was thwarted by screams from the cousin accompanying her. She denounced the extortion and threats at the local police station in the area where she was hiding on XXXX XXXX. The following day, she received a picture of her exiting her relative's house on her cell phone, suspecting police involvement. With help from her other brother living in Canada, she obtained a travel visa and travelled on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019. [3] The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concluded to the existence of viable Internal Flight Alternatives (IFA) in two areas of Peru, namely Cusco and Arequipa. [4] The Appellant, who is self represented, pleads in her memorandum the RPD erred in that: - it did not consider the specific risks feared by the claimant in the IFA analysis; - it failed to consider available state protection in the designated location; - it failed to identify the particular risk Ms. XXXX claims to fear. [5] Furthermore, the Appellant also submits documents claiming them to be new evidence, namely: - a denunciation by her father to the public ministry dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, a copy of which is already contained in the RPD file as part of Exhibit C-1, en liasse; - a statement made by her father dated XXXX 2019 of which an identical content is already contained in the RPD file as part of Exhibit C-3, en liasse; - a declaration made by the Appellant; [6] The determinative issue is IFA. DECISION [7] I dismiss the appeal. The RPD was correct in finding that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. NEW EVIDENCE The evidence presented by the Appellant is rejected [8] According to the law,1 I can only accept evidence that: i. arose after the RPD decision; or ii. was not reasonably available at the time of the decision; or iii. that you could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to bring to the RPD before the decision. [9] If the evidence meets one or more of these requirements, I must decide if the evidence is new, credible, and relevant before I can accept it.2 [10] Amongst the documents submitted as new evidence, the denunciation to the public ministry as well as the clarification statement made by the Appellant's father are already in the RPD file as parts of Exhibits C-1 and C-3, en liasse. The other document, a declaration made by the Appellant, seems to have been made after the date of the decision as the preprinted date form indicates February 2020. The content is irrelevant to the issues at hand as it concerns personal hurdles encountered while filing her appeal. I reject them all as new evidence. ANALYSIS [11] My role is to look at all the evidence and decide if the RPD made the correct decision.3 [12] The RPD determined that on a balance of probabilities, the Appellant would not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life or of cruel and unusual punishment or danger of torture in either Cusco or Arequipa. First prong of the test [13] The Appellant's threatened exposure to a risk to life stems from her brother's refusal to be extorted. She testified to having been targeted with phone calls, letters, and telephone messages and being intercepted and attacked. Moving to another area was shown to serve no purpose as she was discovered. She went to the police station and was able to see that doing so served little to no purpose. On that basis, she pleads such a situation will reproduce itself no matter where she finds herself in Peru. [14] It is important to note her brother successfully relocated himself. He has not disclosed his whereabouts to his family so that it is not unrealistic to think the Appellant would be equally successful in relocating herself. The RPD surmised the individuals could have followed her to her new location and that any suspicion of police involvement remains speculative. The Appellant equally testified that her parents have also gone to live with an aunt and that they have also been without problem. [15] The size, resources and capabilities of the extorters' operations are speculative. Although the Appellant claims they are part of a mafia, the extent of their organization is unknown. Furthermore, it would seem somewhat particular that extorters alleged to have the means, resources, and capabilities to locate and find anyone in Peru would not be able to find the one person they planned on extorting. Furthermore, the individuals seem to have solely targeted her without paying attention to any other member of the family, including the daughter of the individual initially extorted. [16] The RPD's conclusion that the risk faced by the Appellant is located to the vicinity of Lima and that on a balance of probabilities she would not have a risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture in Cusco or Arequipa is correct. Second prong of the test [17] The RPD examined the objective reasonableness of the Appellant's relocation to either Cusco or Arequipa. Keeping in mind its correct conclusion as to the absence of risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or danger of torture in the two designated areas, the RPD analyzed the Appellant's profile. [18] Her professional qualifications in the field of insurance have enabled her to earn a living. Although the Appellant claims she would not feel safe in the two designated areas, there is nothing to indicate she would be exposed to any risk. As such, nothing indicates she would not be able to obtain work and carry on as she has done in the past ten years. The conclusion concerning the reasonableness of her relocating herself to Cusco or Arequipa is correct. CONCLUSION [19] I dismiss the appeal and confirm the decision of the RPD that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. (signed) Me Richard Sheitoyan Richard Sheitoyan March 15, 2021 Date RS/lp 1 Subsection 110(4) of the IRPA. 2 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 96; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raza FC 385 3 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, 2016 FCA 93; Rozas del Solar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-30804 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français